Scientists Declare No Consensus on GMO Safety

[Zecora]

Nothing is, can be, or will be, 100% safe. Nothing.

Any substance that is sufficiently studied can have a degree of safety approaching 100%. The GMO's of today is nowhere near that, especially given that the modified genetic material is not broken down entirely, but can be found and identified a long time later in the bloodstream (among other), something the GMO industry and its proponents have claimed was impossible for decades.

[Spectral]

These sorts of signature lists are always wildly unimpressive. I don't think people realize just how many scientists there are with titles that sound impressive on paper. I'm Spectral, Ph.D. in Immunology, Postdoctoral Fellow at [fancy institute in semi-fancy field]. This doesn't actually give me any credibility outside of a narrow chunk of vaccine development and host-pathogen interaction.

Pulling one random person from this list, Lyla Mehta, a quick Google search on her shows me that she's a research fellow that works on "politics of water scarcity and the linkages between gender, displacement and resistance" and a few other topics similarly unrelated to plant genetics. Why should I take her opinion more seriously than mine? I also see a bunch of lawyers on the list. I give zero shits about the opinions of lawyers when it comes to science.

[Zecora]

No consensus among the signed scientists (i.e. not all scientists in this field) I presume, because of this.

I question the idea of scientific consensus on the issue, given the number of studies showing that GMO's presents a threat. Normally, I'd say Wikipedia is a good source of information, but as we see, some of the articles given as basis for the claim of scientific consensus, actually states something completely different, such as "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. " (http://www.who.int/foodsafety/public...0questions/en/) -Thus I question if the statement of scientific consensus is truely provable. The scientists who have signed (a small number of which is mentioned by the OP) certainly does not agree with there being a consensus.

- - - Updated - - -

These sorts of signature lists are always wildly unimpressive. I don't think people realize just how many scientists there are with titles that sound impressive on paper. I'm Spectral, Ph.D. in Immunology, Postdoctoral Fellow at [fancy institute in semi-fancy field]. This doesn't actually give me any credibility outside of a narrow chunk of vaccine development and host-pathogen interaction.

Actually, if you work in immunology, you're likely to have studied the effect of genes on our immune system, work which may have included genetic manipulation of the immune system of plants and animals.

[Osmeric]

YOU need to re-read the OP. There IS no consensus on the safety of GMO foods.

Oh please. The OP's post shows only that someone cherrypicked some people on the fringe of the issue.

The fact is that there IS a scientific consensus that GMOs are safe. There are some agenda-driven pseudoscientists on the outside.

Congratulations, you managed to pack both an ad hominem, a strawman and a red herring into the same few lines. I bet you're very proud, just too bad there was no room for an actual argument in there.

So, you think eliminating inequality in the world is a realistic proposal, so that vitamin-A producing grains need not be introduced?

If so, you are advocating something that is very unlikely to work, in place of something that could actually save millions of lives.

I will not hestitate at all to call your position one of evil. This is not ad hominem; this is a rational description of your appalling position on this issue. You prefer a course of action that will lead to a mountain of corpses.

- - - Updated - - -

I question the idea of scientific consensus on the issue, given the number of studies showing that GMO's presents a threat.

I'm sure you can find garbage science supporting all sorts of falsehoods. Look at global warming denialism, for example. That's why conclusions have to be based on the totality of the evidence. When governments look at that, they conclude GMOs are safe.

[Spectral]

Actually, if you work in immunology, you're likely to have studied the effect of genes on our immune system, work which may have included genetic manipulation of the immune system of plants and animals.

Yeah, I'm actually a decent bit closer to this than a randomly selected educated non-scientist, simply by virtue of being pretty familiar with the basic science. Nonetheless, I'm not going to declare expertise in it if I'm arguing with an actual genetic engineer. I work on vaccine responses, cytokine responses, and I'm just starting to do a bit of host RNAseq analysis, which puts me in a better spot than a lawyer, but ultimately, not in a great spot.

Basically, I'm just not impressed with people signing petitions with credentials that sound good but may or may not really mean anything in context. Maybe all of these people are experts, I don't really know. It reminds me a bit of those climate change "skeptic" signatories though.

Right now, I'm fairly agnostic about GMOs. I remain fairly unconcerned, but I we'll see what the data looks like when more comes in. I do, however, get grumpy about advocacy groups that have staked out bizarre, unsupported positions.

[Zecora]

Oh please. The OP's post shows only that someone cherrypicked some people on the fringe of the issue.

The fact is that there IS a scientific consensus that GMOs are safe. There are some agenda-driven pseudoscientists on the outside.

Okay, PROVE it. Because there are plenty of people on that list (and the full one) who work in the field and are well qualified to speak up on the lack of consensus. Your personal opinion on the matter however, doesn't matter one bit.

So, you think eliminating inequality in the world is a realistic proposal, so that vitamin-A producing grains need not be introduced?

If so, you are advocating something that is very unlikely to work, in place of something that could actually save millions of lives.

I will not hestitate at all to call your position one of evil. This is not ad hominem; this is a rational description of your appalling position on this issue. You prefer a course of action that will lead to a mountain of corpses.

I prefer a course of action that does not risk the lives of billions tomorrow in order to MAYBE save a few thousand today. I prefer a course that is sensible, rather than foolhardy and based on greed (and make no mistake, those companies who develop GMO crop do so to get richer, not out of the goodness of their heart). I prefer a course of action that values genetic diversity, not monoculture. I prefer a course of action that sees the farmers owning their crop and their seeds, not one that forces them to buy new seeds every year or else face lawsuits.

I also prefer debating without implying that those I debate against are evil because they hold a different view than mine. I am sorry to see that you apparently are incapable of this.

I'm sure you can find garbage science supporting all sorts of falsehoods. Look at global warming denialism, for example. That's why conclusions have to be based on the totality of the evidence. When governments look at that, they conclude GMOs are safe.

Here's the difference: The vast majority of those with any scientific education at all whom deny AGCC have no expertise in the field. This is not the case with those who say that we need more studies into GMO's. In addition, there is a 97% consensus on AGCC, there is no such thing on the safety of GMO's.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I'm actually a decent bit closer to this than a randomly selected educated non-scientist, simply by virtue of being pretty familiar with the basic science. Nonetheless, I'm not going to declare expertise in it if I'm arguing with an actual genetic engineer. I work on vaccine responses, cytokine responses, and I'm just starting to do a bit of host RNAseq analysis, which puts me in a better spot than a lawyer, but ultimately, not in a great spot.

Basically, I'm just not impressed with people signing petitions with credentials that sound good but may or may not really mean anything in context. Maybe all of these people are experts, I don't really know. It reminds me a bit of those climate change "skeptic" signatories though.

Right now, I'm fairly agnostic about GMOs. I remain fairly unconcerned, but I we'll see what the data looks like when more comes in. I do, however, get grumpy about advocacy groups that have staked out bizarre, unsupported positions.

Their position ISN'T unsupported of bizarre though. They are calling for more research. Sure, you would want to look closer at their credentials if they were issuing blanket statements about GMO's being lethal, but that is not the case.

They are calling for more knowledge on the issue, which everyone should support.

[Spectral]

Their position ISN'T unsupported of bizarre though. They are calling for more research. Sure, you would want to look closer at their credentials if they were issuing blanket statements about GMO's being lethal, but that is not the case.

They are calling for more knowledge on the issue, which everyone should support.

I'm referring to this:

Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

There's no basis for claiming that regulatory and scientific rigor has been compromised. Indicting the integrity of people working in those fields through this claim is a bit of sleight of hand built off of the simple (and true) statement that more data wold be nice.

[Zecora]

I'm referring to this:



There's no basis for claiming that regulatory and scientific rigor has been compromised. Indicting the integrity of people working in those fields through this claim is a bit of sleight of hand built off of the simple (and true) statement that more data wold be nice.

Note though, they aren't saying that it HAS been compromised, but that a possible sideeffect of people believing that there is a consensus COULD lead to it being compromised.

I would note though, that the standards of testing when it comes to new GMO products are often frightenly lax.

[Spectral]

Note though, they aren't saying that it HAS been compromised, but that a possible sideeffect of people believing that there is a consensus COULD lead to it being compromised.

Which, really, is pretty much a bullshit move. It's pretty much directly out of the climate change denial playbook, wherein they turn broad agreement into a "well, ya know, this could make people in the field sloppy" angle. If they think that's happening, show your work. Speculating that people are compromised (or can be because reasons) is pretty nasty.

[Rukentuts]

Same goes for people who claim that GMO's don't have a negative impact..

Considering pretty much everything people have been eating for hundreds of years is genetically modified, safety is well established. But ooooo those scary laboratories.

[NuLogic]

This guy again....what are you trying to accomplish on a video game forum?

[Zecora]

Which, really, is pretty much a bullshit move. It's pretty much directly out of the climate change denial playbook, wherein they turn broad agreement into a "well, ya know, this could make people in the field sloppy" angle. If they think that's happening, show your work. Speculating that people are compromised (or can be because reasons) is pretty nasty.

Well, wouldn't you say that when something the industry have categorically denied as being impossible for years happens after all in independant trials, it indicates that scientific standards have been compromised?

- - - Updated - - -

Considering pretty much everything people have been eating for hundreds of years is genetically modified, safety is well established. But ooooo those scary laboratories.

No, No, NO. Selective breeding is not the same as the genetic manipulation which is carried out today! Seriously, who is spreading this misinformation?!

[Spectral]

Well, wouldn't you say that when something the industry have categorically denied as being impossible for years happens after all in independant trials, it indicates that scientific standards have been compromised?

No, I'd say industry claims are industry claims. If there's an example of academic or governmental fraud or malfeasance to be found, I haven't seen it. I'm never surprised by shady business practices.

[Rukentuts]

No, No, NO. Selective breeding is not the same as the genetic manipulation which is carried out today! Seriously, who is spreading this misinformation?!

Of course it's not entirely the same. But the ooooo evil scary lab factor is also removed.

[Spectral]

This guy again....what are you trying to accomplish on a video game forum?

Discussion is fun for its own sake, but this actually seems like a perfectly fine place for advocacy as well. There's a large readership, many are undecided on a number of issues and can learn and absorb new things. I don't know why "lol video game forum!" would be an argument for not discussing serious things. There's plenty of smart, well informed people on the board.

[Zecora]

No, I'd say industry claims are industry claims. If there's an example of academic or governmental fraud or malfeasance to be found, I haven't seen it. I'm never surprised by shady business practices.

But as far as I know, it is not the FDA that tests the safety of these products in the US, that is left up to the companies that stand to lose millions if their product is NOT deemed safe...by themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it's not entirely the same. But the ooooo evil scary lab factor is also removed.

There is nothing scary about a lab. There is everything scary about a lab that places greed and speed over public safety.

[NuLogic]

Discussion is fun for its own sake, but this actually seems like a perfectly fine place for advocacy as well. There's a large readership, many are undecided on a number of issues and can learn and absorb new things. I don't know why "lol video game forum!" would be an argument for not discussing serious things. There's plenty of smart, well informed people on the board.

Yes but the majority will not care. I just find it weird that he spends so much effort for a forum where people will want video game discussions and other fun stuff.

[Zecora]

That's also not what you said.

I would have thought it was sufficiently clear since everybody know that you cannot achieve a certainty of 100%?

[Spectral]

Yes but the majority will not care. I just find it weird that he spends so much effort for a forum where people will want video game discussions and other fun stuff.

The Off-Topic is largely people that are interested in politics, current events, history, and science. I don't find someone posting about something that's of particular interest to them all that weird. Yeah, some people get really tiresome when they spam the shit out of the same things, but as long as it's constructive, I don't really see the problem. It's better than the 3784th "I don't know how to talk to this girl" thread.

[Dethh]

where people will want video game discussions and other fun stuff.

They literally have sub forums for those specific people.
http://www.mmo-champion.com/forums/2...mes-Discussion
http://www.mmo-champion.com/forums/316-Fun-Stuff